peaka_update_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds value by specifying that schedule is only for materialized queries and ignored for plain ones, plus the at-least-one constraint. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two paragraphs: first introduces purpose and constraints, second offers usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutative tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: covers purpose, param constraints, conditional behavior, and prerequisite. Could explicitly state that update is partial (only provided fields change), but implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the important constraint that at least one of displayName, inputQuery, or schedule must be provided, which is not in the schema. Also provides guidance on projectId retrieval.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing saved query, specifying adjustable fields: displayName, SQL body, and auto-refresh schedule. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'update' vs create/delete/refresh tools. The at-least-one constraint further clarifies purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like peaka_create_query or peaka_refresh_materialized_query, though the name and context infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.